Products

About

The Adversary System

The Adversary System
Role of the Parties * Each party is responsible for the preparation and presentation of their own case and will present the best arguments to support their case. * In most cases legal representation will be used

Role of the Adjudicator * Either a judge or magistrates sitting alone or a judge and a jury * The judge is responsible for ensuring that both parties obey the rules of the court, application of the rules of evidence and procedure, ensuring that the burden of proof is satisfied. * In criminal cases where there is no jury the judge decides guilt or innocence. In criminal cases where there is a jury the judge will sum up the facts and relevant law and determine the sanction if the defendant is found guilty. * In a civil case in which there is no jury the judge will determine liability and the remedy. In a civil case in which there is a jury the jury may be asked to determine liability and the level of damages.

Roles of Evidence and Procedure
* Reliant on the presentation of oral evidence that can be cross examined and tested for truth in the court by both parties * Evidence is presented on oath.
* The vest evidence rule means that evidence should be presented only by an eye-witness in court. * Special rules apply for taking expert evidence.

Need for Legal Representation * Due to strict pre-trial procedures representations is often necessary to achieve a just outcome. * Dietrich Principle – Judge can Order Legal Aid in a criminal trial if he feels the accused person would not get a fair trial without legal representation and can’t afford their own.

Inquisitorial Trial
* Used in civil law countries. Such as France and Germany. * It varies from country to country but general features include: *...

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...﻿The AdversarySystem
The adversarial system is defined as a legal system where two advocates represent their parties' positions before an impartial person or group of people, usually a jury or judge, who attempt to determine the truth of the case.
The Key features of the adversary trial are the role of the parties, the role of the judge, the need for legal representation, the rules of evidence and procedure and the burden and standard of proof.
The advantage of the role of the parties is that you have control of your own case. You get to decide how to investigate the case, how many witnesses to call in a hearing or trial, what sort of evidence to bring out, whether to have legal representation, the method employed to bring out evidence. Parties are more likely to be satisfied with the outcome of their case if they are in charge of it. Being in control of your own case, you may do everything possible to win the battle.
The role of the judge is an important part of the adversarysystem. The judge’s role is to ensure a just outcome and conduct the case in accordance to the laws and regulations, and provide equal treatment to both sides. The advantage of having a judge is that it allows there is an impartial party to deliberate a fair outcome based on the cases presented. The use of an impartial decision maker is allows the public to feel more confident in the outcome of...

...Supporters of the adversarysystem believe it is the best justice system in the world to balance the rights of the individuals against the community’s expectations that people who break society’s laws will be punished.
There are many strengths of the adversarysystem. Party control is the first strength of the system. The parties are in control of their own destinies. That is, they must prepare and present their own cases and accept the responsibility for the consequences. This is an extension of the basic democratic principle. Truth and conflicting interests is another strength. By giving the parties control over their own affairs, it is more likely that ‘great truths will energy from the powerful conflicting arguments’. Equality before the law is another strength. The parties to the dispute are treated equally before the law. This is a fundamental element of the rule of law. The system also respects the fundamental legal rights of the individual, such as the presumption of innocence, the right to remain silent and the right to present your own case. The judge in the adversarysystem is completely independent and impartial and cases are decided purely on their merits in accordance with law. Strict rules of evidence are also applied so that both parties have a fair and equal opportunity to put their cases and that only reliable and relevant...

...As the name suggests, the adversarysystem in Australia refers to a method of trial, which involves contestants or adversaries, that is, it is an adversarial approach in attempting to resolve legal issues between two opposing sides. There are five features of the adversarysystem in Australia; contest; party control; strict rules of evidence and procedures; role of the judge or magistrate and single event trials. The strengths and weaknesses of the adversarysystem, which has evolved through out history are varied, and as a result the question of whether this system provides justice is often challenged.
Unlike the inquisitorial system used in European countries, in the adversarysystem, the judges are not expected to conduct an investigation into the facts of the case to reach the truth. Instead adversary judges rely on the case presented by the two opposing sides. This contest between the two parties is based on the belief that a contest is more likely to bring out the best in the parties and make them strive to win. If both sides are trying their hardest the truth is most likely to be uncovered.
The concept of party control is an important feature of the adversarysystem. Because magistrates or judges have a very passive role in adversary trials, the case is...

...The AdversarySystem
Evaluate the effectiveness of the AdversarySystem as a means of achieving justice.
In Australia the AdversarySystem is used as a way of ensuring justice is achieved fairly, equally and easily accessed. This system was inherited from Britain and concerns two contrasting parties presenting their evidence before a neutral third party. This system of trial is successful in accomplishing several aspects of the legal system, such as protecting individual’s rights, meeting society’s needs and applying the rule of law. Conversely, the adversarysystem is also ineffective in regards to resource efficiency, accessibility and responsiveness. Nonetheless some of these aspects also cross over between strengths and limitations of achieving justice such as accessibility and protection of individual’s rights.
The AdversarySystem practiced in Australia is based around the fundamental principle that two opposing sides, the defence and prosecution, have the right to choose which evidence they present to an impartial judge or magistrate. Both parties can also choose which witnesses to cross examine and their roles are to essentially persuade the court to find in favour of their client. In more serious cases a jury of random citizens is selected to hear evidence and reach a verdict,...

...Explain why the adversarysystem of trial is the best system for achieving justice in criminal trials?
The adversarysystem of trial is the best system for achieving justice in criminal trials for a number of different reasons. The use of a jury, the standard of evidence relied upon and the standard of proof, the cross-examining of witnesses and the ability to plead guilty, contribute greatly to reaching justice in the adversarysystem. They are all reasons which help the adversarysystem in accomplishing fairness in criminal trials. The adversarysystem is a feature of the common law system and was brought to Australia with England. It has adapted to the Australian legal system. It is a system of trial where, "…the two sides of the case try to present and prove their version of the facts and disprove the version of the other side."� A jury decides guilt or innocence, while a judge or magistrate guides the jury in areas of law, as well as deciding a suitable punishment for the defendant.
In criminal cases in the adversarial system of trial, justice is achieved through the use of evidence. In the adversarial system, the standard of evidence that can be used to support an argument is high. This is seen in the statement "… the rules of...

...The two legal systems in question are the adversarysystem, most commonly practiced in the United States, and the civil law system, also referred to as the inquisitorial system, most commonly practiced in European countries. Both systems have the same goal; to find the truth. However, each system has a very different path to justice. The adversarial system implies that two parties assume opposite positions in debating the guilt or innocence of an individual. In this scenario, the judge is required to be neutral at the contest unfolding before him or her. The role of the judge in this arrangement is to ensure the trial proceeds according to the procedural rules of trial or due process of law and that evidence entered is done so accordingly. The basis of this approach in criminal matters in which two sides engage in debate and battle about the guilt or innocence of an accused and since each side wants to win, then the debate will foster a critical look at the issues and the evidence to be examined by both parties. By engaging in this discourse, the truth should emerge as the judge watches on. This means that the roles played on both sides are very distinct. The defense counsel as one adversarial party gather the arguments to defend the client and attacks the credibility and worthiness of the evidence presented. The prosecutor puts forth the arguments on behalf of...

...The system of criminal procedure primarily utilized in the United States is the adversarial system. The term adversary is easily interpreted to mean opposition. Our present criminal procedure pits two sides against each other to present their respective evidence and issues surrounding a criminal act. This paper will address the adversarial system and its expressed use in criminal court proceedings in the United States. Among the questions this paper will take into consideration are: Is the adversarial system the best way to achieve justice in the criminal courts of the United States; what those limitations are; how those limitations deliver justice; alternatives to the adversarial system; and the advantages or disadvantages of those alternatives.
Achieving JusticeWhen confronted with the issue of the best method to achieving justice in criminal court proceedings; one must understand what the adversarial system entails.
The use of a jury, the standard of evidence relied upon and the standard of proof, the cross-examining of witnesses and the ability to plead guilty, contribute greatly to reaching justice in the adversarysystem. They are all reasons which help the adversarysystem in accomplishing fairness in criminal trials. The adversarysystem is a feature of the common law...

...Regular Paper
System Training Metrics
and Measures: A Key
Operational Effectiveness
Imperative
Dinesh Verma,1, * John Farr,1 and Line H. Johannesen2
1
Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering Management, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ 07030
2
Product Support & Logistics, Kongsberg Defense and Aerospace, AS Missiles and Space Division, Kongsberg, Norway
SYSTEM TRAINING METRICS AND MEASURES: A KEY OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS IMPERATIVE
Received 4 August 2002; Accepted 28 April 2003
DOI 10.1002/sys.10047
ABSTRACT
An assessment framework to make explicit the “cause and effect” relationship between design
decisions and their impact on system operations, maintenance, and support is essential to
influence new and upgrade program development from the longer-term life-cycle perspective. This becomes even more urgent with increasingly greater utilization of commercial-offthe-shelf (COTS) elements within information and knowledge intensive systems in the
commercial (IT, Telecommunication, Banking, Finance) and aerospace domains. These architectures are often characterized by an evolving physical baseline (technology refreshment)
driven by obsolescence and end-of-life risk considerations. The first objective of this paper
is to present the concept of System Operational Effectiveness (SOE). System Operational
Effectiveness serves as a...